Add It Up

Posted: October 13, 2012 in Humanity is a virus

The Zombie-eyed granny starver has chicken-legs. That’s what happens when someone’s physical exertion is done via Tv snake-oil workouts, and not by actual, you know, WORK.

Like Biden, Letterman treats this doofus with all the civility and respect he deserves:

Actually, Chicken-legs there probably doesn’t deserve THAT much. Being pied would probably be just about right. Or frozen urine treats? May need to contact Chuckles for outsourcing….

But beyond that, here’s a question about this oh-so-serious Rmoney Taxin’ Plan.

They are saying an across the board, 20% tax cut. Presumable that is Federal Income tax, as all the other taxes most of us pay are of other kinds. Also presumably, they don’t mean Medicare and SS (although with these flagrantly evil pirates, who can tell).

OK. So everybody gets 20% off their Fed income tax. Obviously, in real numbers, this will be a bigger deal to the 1%, and the 47% moochers won’t see a damn thing from it.

But then they say the tax cut will be revenue neutral. Of course, they won’t identify how they will compensate, because defense spending HAS to go up; middle class items like mortgage exemptions are not mentioned. Estate Taxes and Capital Gains will not budge, unless they go down too.

So, even if there IS some magic way to get to revenue neutrality, where is it coming from? The stated goal is to put more money in the hands of rich ‘Jawb Creeaturz”. So EVEN if there is some magickal Confidence Fairy and Trickle Down Elf that manages to make the whole structure stand on some rickety jury rigged neutral basis (one which is sure to be immediately eroded by the creation of new exemptions and loopholes to replace the ones that disappeared).

Even under the BEST case scenario Willard-BainCo lays out, the whole proposal will not affect the revenues taken in. Under MAGICKAL conditions. So what is the point? Why bother?

Because it is designed to redistribute the last vestiges of meager wealth remaining among the 99% into the pockets of Mitt and Friends. And if you’re not one of his ‘class’ sucks to be you. And the tax cuts, as Dubya before, will come at the expense of middle class payments, further elimination of expenditures on things like infrastructure, cops, teachers, firefighters, and veterans; or through increased deficit (of course, deficits due to tax cuts pay for themselves! Darth Cheney and Grover Norquist told us so!)

It’s all a bait-and-switch operation and not a very sophisticated one at that. Paul Ryan is not a serious policy wonk; he is a half-bright flim-flam man. In another era, he would have been selling potions from the back of a truck.

And as if anyone needs reminding, here’s what happened last time someone did this:

Fuckers. In this case, gridlock is actually going to help us. I have been skeptical about Lawrence O’Donnell’s “Off Teh Cliff” rhetoric, but am beginning to see the value. Take the fucking Bush tax cuts out of the equation, even if it also hits the 99%. I think most middle class folks would accept it, if the 1% also have to pay. And then, in January, when Congress starts acting like their hair is on fire (which it won’t be; most of the cuts and the restored taxes won’t start making their effects known for months, if not years), we can all just laugh and laugh at them….

Arithmetic and Logic. No wonder the Right hates education and college; it’s not their friend.

  1. What a crazy worm he is. I predict a long and influential career.

  2. Landru says:

    The gym photos should be a giant biohazard sign to anyone with a brain.

    Which, sadly, doesn’t pertain to anyone who takes seriously Ryan’s math.

  3. In more local Asswipe republican news, Turdwaffle crony Kevin Kavanaught was convicted of stealing $51,000 from veterans.

    Turdwaffle’s friends. Eagle Scout my ass. he’s another fucking scam artist who oozed his way into politics.

  4. mikey says:

    Unfortunately, the negative side to your calculation is that the deficits under current economic conditions aren’t just harmless, they’re actually beneficial. We can borrow money at negative rates. We can print money in unlimited amounts without affecting inflation. Keynes in action, bay bee. So while tax cuts are a shitty form of stimulus, they are the only kind of stimulus on the table right now, so raising taxes, particularly on lower marginal rates, takes real demand out of an already demand starved system, making things measurable worse for everyone. Even with the Bush tax cuts on the highest marginal rates, if all they’re going to do with that revenue is pay down the near-term debt, fuck it, leave the goddam things in place – eliminating them won’t change anything for anybody. The WORST part is letting the payroll tax cuts expire. Remember, rich people don’t pay payroll taxes – that’s just you and me. Less economic demand, more austerity, less employment, shrinking GDP, harder times for the rest of us.

    Now, ultimately, I think that the Dems can stand their ground and end up with a deal that eliminates the Bush tax cuts on the highest marginal rates while preserving them for the rest – the messaging of allowing a tax increase on everybody in defense of the wealthiest is SO toxic they will have to walk away from it. The question is whether the Dems will hold the line or back down first, and history is not kind here.

    On the cliff, I think the tax argument is the most interesting politically, but the arguments over the debt ceiling and sequestration are more interesting economically. The debt ceiling is a ridiculous and pointless construct, a built in hostage. I really hope the president goes to the treasury and has them mint a couple Trillion dollar coins and just flips the bird at congress. He could do it, it’s in the law, and congress couldn’t stop him. The House could start impeachment hearings, but it would already be too late. On sequestration, if they cancel the sequestered cuts, they have created an interesting situation. Once that’s done, no legislative agreement between the branches of government will ever again be considered binding. No triggers, no trade-offs, everything duly passed and signed above the table or it just doesn’t count. This might turn out to be good or bad – nobody ever had the courage to piss on a righteous agreement before, so nobody knows for sure – bu it well certainly change the way business is done on Capitol Hill.

    The other part of the tax-cutting equation that never gets mentioned is the whole “money-is-fungible” deal. If you cut government revenues and spending, the states are increasingly starved for funding, so they have to raise taxes. If you cut taxes 20% at the federal level and raise them 40% at the state level you have ended up with a more economically destructive burden on wage-earners than you started with. Less demand, smaller GDP, less employment, lather, rinse, repeat…

  5. I guess I agree with you for the most part, mikey, but I would argue that tax cuts draining money from the lower portions of the budget, the parts that go to pay for most of society, does far more damage than any possible return into the economy that may be done by giving more tax cuts which go disproportionately to the top 1%. The fuckers AREN’T returning those gifts in any stimulative way, they are gambling with them in the Wall Street Casino. They aren’t even building themselves new houses designed by starving architects.

    Yeah, the payroll tax thing is a decent stimulus, but in reality if the Bush Tax Cuts expire, the increase in revenue starts to make up for it. And between you, me and thunder, would you rather have a job with slightly higher payroll taxes? Or no job at all?

  6. If they have to, mikey, they have indicated that they are willing to let all the tax cuts expire, then come back with a separate payroll and middle class tax cuts to reinstate those. Which would be difficult for the Republicans to stonewall on, although they constantly amaze.

  7. mikey says:

    You are absolutely right – provided congress will actually use the revenue increase to do worthwhile things. If the Bush tax cuts were ALL eliminated, and at least half the revenue went to infrastructure, transportation and green energy projects – you’d be reducing CONSUMER demand but offsetting that with increased EMPLOYMENT demand, which would then fuel more consumer demand. The problem is that this is TWO problems for the idiots in congress – and in THIS case Thunder’s right, it ain’t just Republicans. They have to address revenues, sure, but then they also have to allocate those revenues with spending bills. And while the Republicans are blatantly lying about caring about deficit spending, many of the more ‘earnest’ Democrats actually WILL work to reduce the near-term deficit. And that’s CRAZY. And our man Obama has fed right into that trap rhetorically.

    On a more fun note, stand by. I’ll have a post up on the Giants miraculous NLDS victory as soon as I finish my lunch…

    • Yeah, ultimately this is just thunder-bait, isn’t it?

      But I kept coming back to the basic idea of Romney-Ryan’s plan; if it’s zero-sum, why bother? Of course, there’s an obvious answer, one which the Village, millionaires themselves, will never come close to uttering. So I wrote that mother up, garnished it with a little ZEGS-mockery and a Femmes video, and pushed ‘publish’.

  8. FDL is reporting that the Joint Committee on Taxation (and I am in SUPPORT of taxing joints, as long as we make ’em legal) releases a study showing that repealing ALL the itemized deductions in the tax code would only allow for a 4 percent across the board reduction.

    So my stipulation up in that post that the 20% cut could even be MADE revenue neutral was unnecessarily generous. I will try not to be such a soft-and-fuzzy zombie in the future.

    MATH, motherfuckers; do you SPEAK IT?

  9. mikey says:

    Historically, the Republicans have done nothing but deficit funding for everything. Hell, they voted to get rid of PayGo, fer crissakes. The deficit provides them with a convenient excuse to eliminate programs for the poor, who notably are NOT a politically powerful constituency, and transfer the funds to the wealthy. That’s revenue neutrality to them.

    Even though they never say it, they’re actually economically smarter than the Democrats. They genuinely understand that inflation is not a risk under present circumstances, and if it ever becomes a risk the Fed knows exactly how to lower it. The Democrats, on the other hand, in many cases seem to have fallen for the rhetoric and have come to believe the short-term deficit represents some kind of threat to the American Economy.

    In short – you’re right, of course. It is the Revenue neutrality part that will fall by the wayside if Romney is elected. They’ll just run the Executive like Bush II, The Re-Spending. It would be kinda funny if the Democrats in the Senate ended up teaming up with the tea party true believers to hold Romney hostage over the debt ceiling. You think HE’D hesitate to order up a couple of trillion dollar platinum coins?

  10. Even though they never say it, they’re actually economically smarter than the Democrats.

    I am not inclined to be so generous. Sure, the rich motherfuckers like the Kochs understand that kind of shit, and they make up some believable sounding crap to feed down to their wholly owned subsidiaries like Scott Walker and Ryan.

    But you can see that by the time it percolates down to idiots like Louie Gohmert or Todd Akin or Michele Bachmann, the weak logic and rationality has been leached away. At that point, it just becomes reliance on party discipline, simple talking points, and the knowledge that they will never – EVER!- be challenged on it. Even so, some of the lesser lights have said some things that evidence complete ignorance of taxes, economics, and business.

    They do, however, manage to make it all sound good enough to bring some Dems over; of course the Blue Dogs are already in line.

  11. herr doktor bimler says:

    Thanks AK for the ticket to last night’s Billy Bragg concert. One half devoted to his Woody Guthrie collaboration, and half to his own songs. ZRM would really have enjoyed it.
    Also he says “Bollocks!” a lot. We should invite him to guest-post at Riddled.

    • I DID enjoy it a couple years ago when he was in Milwaukee.

      • herr doktor bimler says:

        My friend Claire really enjoyed it too. She died five years ago (feckin’ lymphoma) but I knew her well so she’s one of the voices in my head.

        Claire was from Essex herself so she viewed Mr Bragg as a local boy made good, and she never missed him when he played NZ. However, she was never keen on paying for tickets, forcing her to resort to a variety of alternative methods to blag her way into a concert. Her preferred method was to turned up at the stage door with a pavlova and insist on giving it to BB in person.

      • herr doktor bimler says:

        Somehow Mr Bragg had gone through life without encountering the concepts of (a) jetplane lollies, and (b) jetplane lollies as decorations on a pavlova, up until his first concert-related encounter with Claire.

  12. I am, however, inclined to mock AK now for giving away Billy Bragg tickets.

  13. mikey says:

    What, there is some claim here that there exists a better excuse than this?


  14. mikey says:

    mikey, what the HELL, you burned down Reno!!

    Umm, sorry. I fell in with a bad crowd and they got me drunk.

    Oh. OK then…

  15. packers don’t play until 7:20? Sheesh, I might be passed out by then!

  16. Another Kiwi says:

    It wasn’t that bad a crowd.

Go ahead, tell me how I fucked up this time.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s